Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 326

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

VI 1
I&O_357
Question VI 2 Principles We support the principles Tackling climate change, Promoting wellbeing, Providing infrastructure, Protecting character.

Comment

Representation ID: 327

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

VI 1
I&O_358
Question VI 3 We support the principle of setting out visions for key places. These visions should be not only verbal but – perhaps more importantly – visual and constitute master plans, showing roads, cycleways, footpaths, public facilities (schools, shops, health- and community centres, green space etc). All visions should include a strong centre easily reached by foot or bicycle, with a high quality of design and ‘sense of arrival’. At the moment, by and large the policy approaches set out in the Issues and Options paper fail to lay the foundations for such visions. As we have pointed out several times, the small size of the historical centres of the borough’s towns means that they have been disproportionately affected by expansion in recent decades to accommodate wider streets, large surface car parks, a loose urban grain often of poor architectural quality, and consequent pedestrian isolation. This is recognised in the key challenges facing Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford identified in the LTP 4 Evidence Base, pages 84, 86-7. These challenges need to be explored in greater detail in characterisation studies, as already carried out at Chester, that identify the ‘Good, Bad and Ugly’ as a starting point for addressing them through wide-ranging design codes that cover both the layout of settlements and building design. .

Comment

Representation ID: 328

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

OB1
I&O_359
Question OB 5 Sustainability appraisal objectives We support these, but SO4 from the current Local Plan on the development of transport needs to be included (rather than just make use of existing transport infrastructure in the Sustainability appraisal, no 22), as does SO5 on the provision of infrastructure in general for new developments. Objectives SO1, 3, 9 and 10 should be retained and central government persuaded of their merit.

Comment

Representation ID: 329

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

SD 1
I&O_360
Question SD 1 Sustainable development We support the approach set out in SD1.

Comment

Representation ID: 330

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

SS 3
I&O_361
Question SS 4 Principles We generally support the principles set out in SS3, and when there are no opportunities for redevelopment within existing built-up areas it may be appropriate to build urban extensions. However, these should be judged on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the place-based approach enunciated elsewhere in the document, taking into account distance from the facilities needed for everyday life (set at 800m) and the need to maintain or create communities with strong centres and distinct identity rather than just build ‘seas’ of houses, the desirability of maintaining Key Settlement Gaps and possible impacts on the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 331

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

SS 4
I&O_362
Question SS 6 Settlement hierarchy In principle, no settlement should be excluded from development, provided that their character is protected by high-quality planning and design (see Q SS 8), they are situated on routes on which public transport can be made sustainable, and local facilities can be provided. Such development may actually benefit the sustainability of some settlements, and conversely the historical cores of existing settlements can give a sense of identity to new developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 332

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

SS 5
I&O_363
Questions SS 5–19 Spatial strategy options We do not consider that any single option, as presented in the document, is desirable. The Green Belt is particularly important as a Key Settlement Gap in protecting the separation between Chester and Ellesmere Port (see Map 5.5, Area EP01 for the danger) but results in a very large amount of development at Northwich and Winsford. (Option A). Option B, following the existing Local Plan, results in more development at Chester and Ellesmere Port but less at Winsford. Option C, Sustainable Transport Corridors, results in a more dispersed development pattern. This may be the best option, provided that development is relatively high density and is not allowed to sprawl, resulting in coalescence and unnecessary loss of Green Belt land. Is it not possible to encourage more development in the south of the borough, admittedly still in the countryside but outside the Green Belt? If this option were to be pursued, it would be important to ensure that local facilities were adequate to avoid unnecessary travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 333

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

Map 5.4
I&O_364
Question SS 23 The Wrexham Road area up to the A55 (CH03) would seem the most suitable, as it is already partly under development. The Dale and the Moston triangle (CH01) are also obvious candidates for redevelopment. A small amount of land could be developed on the north-western side of Blacon (CH04),

Comment

Representation ID: 334

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

Map 5.4
I&O_365
Qjuestion SS 24 The area between the A41 and A55 (CH02) is split up by a number of major roads. It is isolated from existing facilities and probably too small for such to be constructed.

Comment

Representation ID: 335

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

Map 5.4
I&O_366
Question SS 25 Development along Wrexham Road (CH03) raises the problems of the creation of a centre in an area currently without one and differentiation from Westminster Park and Lache, to avoid the creation of an amorphous sea of houses. It would also accentuate the existing need for a Western Relief Road, to give access to the west side of Chester without having to go through the city centre. The Dale and the Moston triangle (CH01) do not appear to be within easy walking distance of existing local facilities; they would have to be built if these areas were to be used for housing. Development on the north-western side of Blacon should not extend to the Parkgate Road (A540) or immediately south of Hermitage Road to preserve key views (Local Plan Part Two, Key Views 21, 23, 24). The Highfield Drain, which runs between Blacon and Parkgate Road, is prone to flooding and nothing should be done to exacerbate this.